Non-combat mechanics - design issues

[ffilz]

In preparing to run my Cold Iron campaign, I have never been satisfied with how non-combat situations are resolved.

First some description of the original system:

The original game system had almost nothing for non-combat (the magic system is really just part of the combat system). The system is very D&D like (it may even qualify as a Fantasy Heartbreaker). Characters had 1 or more character classes (everyone's combat ability is described by a fighter level, spell casters had a magic or cleric level, non-spell casters could have a passive magic level [which governs saves and a few other minor magic abilities but didn't allow casting of actual spells]). Fighters got to advance a single combat skill as part of their fighter level. It was also possible to have additional skills (that gained experience on the same chart as the character classes), but the only skills detailed were combat skills and riding. An alertness attribute covered the character's ability to notice things. There were a handful of non-combat related spells.

I never really played in other GMs campaigns (the designer and several other folks ran campaigns) to get an idea of what sorts of non-combat skills they had. I think several had a scouting skill that allowed for more than simple spot and listen checks (allowing tracking etc.).

My additions to the system

When I started running the game, I desired to have some non-combat skills. Also, I noted that a straight fighter had very little advantage over a spell caster (the spell caster usually were at most 1 fighter level behind the straight fighters - and I played in some campaigns where due to my poor stat rolls, had a fighter who didn't even fight as well as the fighter magic user). I added a bunch of additional classes, plus I gave the fighter more skills. To trim down the spell casters fighting ability, I gave spell casters fewer combat skills with their fighter levels.

I have somewhat refined this mechanism for my Tekumel campaign, but still it's basically what I'm using.

All skill rolls are done with a task resolution mechanic.

My problems with this

With that background, I can start to describe the problems I'm having.

The biggest problem is that task resolution creates an innequity between combat and non-combat. Combat resolution requires many skill rolls to complete, plus resource management (hit points and spell points). Even fighters have to manage spell points because most magic items require the user to supply the energy.

For non-combat situations, most situations come down to a single skill roll (though tracking might result in several skill rolls). There is almost no resource management for non-combat (though spell casters may still be managing spell points). There is also no clear way to set target numbers, in combat there is (almost) always a well defined target number.

There's also a problem that I think goes all the way back to D&D when the thief was introduced to the game. I have long felt that the D&D style thief was a clumsy addition. Their purpose is to deal with locks and traps, and so to make the thief feel useful, you put lots of locks and traps into your dungeons. Then you have to deal with what happens if the thief is unable to open a critical lock, or bypass a deadly trap? Does the adventure stall?

So I don't want to make the non-combat skills seem meaningless by falling into the same circular justification the D&D thief seems to have.

So this means that non-combat skills need to be a real alternative to combat skills. But there lies a different problem. Borrowing from D&D again, D20 has a diplomacy skill that allows you to change the attitude of an intelligent creature. The DCs for this are relatively static, and it's conceivable that a mid-level bard could negate most encounters with a diplomacy check. That seems anti-climactic.

Working towards a solution

Obviously I could look into other games. Hero Quest looks like it would do a great job by moving to conflict resolution instead of task resolution and using the same resolution system for combat and non-combat situations.

But I really like Cold Iron's combat and magic systems, so that doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.

So my thought is perhaps the solution is to make the non-combat activities more similar to combat. I could add resources, for example, for all that "charisma" type stuff, I could create a resource that is derived from charisma and (some) level similar to how hit points are derived from constitution and fighter level. Or, since spell points are derived differently, I could use something like that (base spell points is an attribute, though on a different scale from the others 6-36 for humans instead of 3-18 and increases with magic levels (there's a bit more to it that I don't want to get into). The other thing is to involve more than just the character with the diplomacy skill. The other characters would have this resource also, and could help the diplomat somehow. Somehow I also have to work in different strategies also (nothing is accomplished if we just make it take 10 diplomacy rolls to make an ally and either you make them or not). Of course it should be possible to define spells to help in these situations.

I notice that FATE actually does this type of thing. It gives many conflicts an accomplishment track that works just like the Fudge damage track works for combat.

The other question is do some skills remain task oriented? I'd be inclined to run tracking with a resource system (and of course the guy you're following is using his resources to try and hide his tracks, or move faster, etc.).

There would be questions of how the resource recovers. Do you get the resource per day? Per week?

Is anyone aware of a system that does this type of thing with a wargamey tactical combat system?

Any thoughts?

Frank

[Sydney Freedberg]

Over in the Haven actual play thread

Another question I have is if the single skill roll for non-combat actions makes them seem less important than combat?

I think any time you "zoom in" on a particular action by covering it in more detail, you force the players to spend more time on it, which makes it more important -- not necessarily more exciting, though (Haven combat seems not to have this problem, but I remember an utterly tedious die-rolling exercise in GURPS).

I think the key thing to realize is that "more detail" does not mean "more excitment." Excitement comes from greater emotional and intellectual investment, which means that exciting things should involve harder choices and higher risks (either strategically or dramatically). One roll vs. many rolls isn't the key distinction.

And since you said that was relevant to your thread here, I've crossposted and quoted myself....

Now, it sounds as if your "Cold Iron" system as described above has a lot of crunchy detail for combat and magic, which you like; but not crunchy detail for everything else. There are two solutions:

1) Add crunchy detail, with resource management & multiple rolls to resolve, for the "everything else" -- or at least those parts of "everything else" that you really care about (maybe it's court intrigue, or basket weaving, or stealth vs. tracking).

2) Figure out what parts of the crunchy detail in combat and magic you really like and see if their essential aspects could apply to other situations, allowing you to create a general mechanic. There are plenty of rules that describe social interactions in the same back-and-forth, attack/parry/riposte model of dealing out some kind of "damage" that is traditionally used for combat (look up The Dying Earth or The Shadow of Yesterday, which I don't have links handy for at the moment but which both have free versions of their rules on the web).

[Roger]

The original game system had almost nothing for non-combat.

When I started running the game, I desired to have some non-combat skills.

The biggest problem is that task resolution creates an innequity between combat and non-combat.

This means that non-combat skills need to be a real alternative to combat skills.

D20 has a diplomacy skill that allows you to change the attitude of an intelligent creature. The DCs for this are relatively static, and it's conceivable that a mid-level bard could negate most encounters with a diplomacy check. That seems anti-climactic.

The burning questions here are: why do you want non-combat skills?  What do you expect from them?  How do see them contributing to the game?

You say that they need to be a "real alternative" to combat, but you also say that when they really are an alternative to combat, that it is anti-climactic.

It might be helpful if you tell us what led you to add non-combat skills into this game in the first place.



Cheers,
Roger

[ffilz]

Sydney - I'll certainly look into Dying Earth since I have that - thanks for the suggestion.

The burning questions here are: why do you want non-combat skills? What do you expect from them? How do see them contributing to the game?

You say that they need to be a "real alternative" to combat, but you also say that when they really are an alternative to combat, that it is anti-climactic.

It might be helpful if you tell us what led you to add non-combat skills into this game in the first place.

A big part of the why is that I am using the Tekumel setting that just begs to be more than a clever justification for cool monsters to fight.

As to being a "real alternative" to combat, but being anti-clamactic, what I mean is that a single simple skill roll: "make a diplomacy check, oh, a 53, the bandit begs you to tell him how he may serve you" is anti-climactic. So what I'm looking for is something that makes (as Syndney says) the non-combat more crunchy. But to be an alternative, and not an obvious thing you should try first, it also needs to be balanced by costs and consequences. With the D&D/D20 model of diplomacy, if your skill is good enough, you should almost always try it, so combat only becomes used when the bard fails.

Another why is that I have a player clearly expressing a desire to be able to use diplomacy.

Frank

[clehrich]

I'd vote for Sydney's option #2.  To put it a little differently than he did, work to make all skills and actions resolve by identical mechanics.  If you love the way combat mechanics work in Cold Iron, you want to export what you love to non-combat mechanics.  This will also, I think, get around your aesthetic dislike, which if I understand you correctly is that there is a mismatch between combat and non-combat.  By extending those same mechanics to cover everything, you will end up with a more seamless system that has no basic mismatches.

Of course, having done that, you're going to need then to strip it down a bit or the thing will play at a glacial pace.  But ideally, you strip down everywhere at the same time, speeding up combat and non-combat without losing whatever it is you love about Cold Iron.

[Sydney Freedberg]

As to being a "real alternative" to combat, but being anti-clamactic, what I mean is that a single simple skill roll: "make a diplomacy check, oh, a 53, the bandit begs you to tell him how he may serve you" is anti-climactic...to be an alternative, and not an obvious thing you should try first, it also needs to be balanced by costs and consequences. With the D&D/D20 model of diplomacy, if your skill is good enough, you should almost always try it, so combat only becomes used when the bard fails. .

So want you want is not just more crunchy, but more risky. What if a failed diplomacy roll makes the situation much, much worse than if you'd just attacked the bandit outright? Maybe you stood there in the open trying to talk the bad guys down while they snuck their friends in behind you, for example.

You can apply this reasoning to almost anything. Want to invent a super-gadget / research a powerful spell to give you a whopping advantage? Fine, but if you botch that roll, your new tool / spell ends up going wrong at the worst possible time. Want to use stealth skills to hide instead of fighting? Fine, but if you botch that, the enemy not only finds you anyway but you're so busy hiding that you're stuck head-first in a badger hole and in no position to fight back.

Your intuition is leading you correctly here: A risk-free solution is anti-climactic. Therefore every approach needs to involve some risk.

{EDIT to add ranting afterthought:}
You only get boring "whiffs" when you define mechanics as "if I make a roll, X happens; if I fail, X doesn't happen." But if failure makes things worse, there is no whiff and no boredom. Conversely, if the characters really are in a situation where they can try doing something and, if they fail, there are no negative consequences -- you shouldn't be rolling: If there's no downside to failure, you can just keep trying until you succeed, which means eventual success is automatic. Only roll the dice when there's a real risk.

[Roger]

With the D&D/D20 model of diplomacy, if your skill is good enough, you should almost always try it, so combat only becomes used when the bard fails.

This is really striking in how well it illustrates what Gamism is all about.

Nancy the Narrativist:  "Hey guys!  We should always try to talk to people before slaughtering them.  Violence should be the last resort when all attempts at diplomacy have failed."

Gary the Gamist: "Borrrrrring..."

I'm not trying to mock either side here -- I just haven't seen such a good example of what GNS is all about in a long time.

Sorry this isn't all that helpful to the thread per se.


Cheers,
Roger

[ffilz]

Good point about not rolling things where there is no (significant) risk. I don't plan on making folks perform an etiquette contest to purchase supplies for an expedition...

If that is used judiciously, then using the same mechanics for everything need not slow the game to a crawl. On the other hand, who cares if it does? As I have mentioned a couple times before, speed of resolution is subjective.

I also think some things can still be handled with simple skill rolls. The trick is to structure things such that situations where the result is not that important (presumably low risk), but also can't be tried again until they succeed, can be resolved with a simple roll.

I'm also not sure that it's automatically gamist to want the system to not allow a single roll to accomplish too much. How much fun would it be in a Nar game if a single roll let the winner narrate almost anything (as long as it's related to the contest)? Would a Nar game be fun if you could in the first 5 minutes of the game declare that you wanted to make a single roll to determine the fate of your character ("hey, I won, my character becomes king of the world, game over", "sorry, you loose, game over").

And it's actually as much a Sim perspective that objects to the D20 diplomacy mechanic. If you are good enough, you can convince the evil lord who is out to conquest the world that really it's all a misunderstanding and he should be your best buddy.

But then I still don't fully understand GNS enough to be sure where I really fit. I'm pretty sure Sim is part of my CA, but perhaps I also expect some Gam.

Frank

[NN]

For me the problem with the D20 Catch-all Diplomacy roll is it that it is both anti-Gamist - it takes player skill out of the equation and anti-Sim - a catch-all skill for all social situations is absurd.

[Grover]

It's not anti-gamist - it just changes the game.  Now the goal is to get the highest possible diplomacy skill.  (Which is, admittedly, less interesting than, frex, optimizing spell selection for a sorceror, but still).
Steve

[ffilz]

I read through Dying Earth's resolution system, and I thought about what I really like about Cold Iron's combat system and here are my thoughts:

First, what I like about Cold Iron's combat system is the wargaminess of it. Using a hex map with miniatures or counters, movement allowances, poistional importance etc. Also, the resource management of hit points that increase with level (ala D&D). There are minor bits that make me like it better than D20's combat system (though over the spectrum of games, Cold Iron's combat system is almost indistinguishable from D20's combat system). I have realized that part of why I like this system is that I am very much a visual/tactile person, and not so much a verbal person.

The problem is that I just don't see how to map the hex map part into a byplay of words. I could see that you could use hit points, so that you make verbal "attacks" that reduce the target's willpower points. Perhaps different requests could require differing amounts of reduction (if you reduce the city gate guard to 75% of his willpower points, you can smuggle something into town [that he managed to spot]), if you reduce a judge to 50%, he will let you off for killing a peasant, etc.). Of course your target would be reducing your willpower at the same time. The refresh rate of willpower would be set such that you can't necessarily afford dropping to 0 just to try and smuggle something into town (hmm, next you're going to need to find a place to stay, or perhaps you will have to stay out after curfew to find a buyer, what if a cop spots you trying to sell, etc.).

Dying Earth (and Hero Quest) solve the problem by dispensing with the hex map (and more). I actually find Hero Quest more attractive, and I can see how you would use relationship ratings to make it difficult (though I didn't note a particular resource use in HQ where DE does have resource use [what I found unattractive about DE is that ultimately all skill does is give you more resource]).

I'm really curious if it's even possible to do what I want. Has any system taken a D&Dlike combat system and extended it to cover social interractions?

Frank

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Frank,

You might be interested in Mike's Standard Rant #3: combat systems.

Best,
Ron

[ffilz]

Ron, thanks for the reminder about that thread. I think the answer to my dilemma is that right now, I want a combat heavy game and Cold Iron is just fine for this. I just need to refine the non-combat stuff a little bit, and make sure the players are cool with the reality of the game.

I know that part of why I want to do Cold Iron for a while is to answer the frustration I had running D20 using Arcana Unearthed. Maybe next year I'll be in the mood to try out some Hero Quest (I think I'm going to make a point of looking for some HQ gaming at GenCon). I'd be happy doing that with the default RuneQuest, or if I'm still psyched about Tekumel, I might try HQ Tekumel.

Re-reading Mike's rant and the subsequent discussion did bring one thing back to me. An old Traveler/SF game took a turn for the better when I simplified the skill system, which helped de-emphasize personal combat, plus the use of a somewhat simplified ship combat system, and the fact that I made starship piloting and navigation something of an adventure. The end result was a game that could focus more on the exploration.

One more interesting datapoint though was a homebrew of my own where in some ways I made combat too complex, and as a result, I didn't run that many combats, and we averaged fewer than 1 combat per game session (and I had a blast).

But all of that is probably meat for another thread. I'm going to consider this thread satisfied unless someone does indeed have a reference for a game system that has a non-combat resolution system that looks a lot like D20 combat or the like.

Thanks all for being a sounding board.

Frank